Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Family-the definition is under attack again

Abortion Family Values Rick Santorum 2005

  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#1 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 28 July 2005 - 10:01 PM

I've posted this because I originally posted it under the Bush picks new Supreme court and all the discussion about abortion.

In my opinion-the Roe Vs Wade thing gets overturned there's bigger things that the Religious Right and Conservative Republicans will then go after and it could be your lifestyle. :eek4:

Big Sigh.

I'm going on to the Soap Box.

:sly:

How many saw Rick Santorum on The Daily Show?

I know-it's just a comedy channel program.  

But...sometimes comedy can be a finger on the pulse of society or at least it can accentuate things that are around us.

I've always taken comedy of this sort seriously. The Marx Brothers for example, watch their movies and keep in mind they are making some very heavy handed social commentaries in their movies.

So...

Rick comes on the Daily Show to promote his book about Family Values.

A conservative look.

Now I'm all for the family-honestly but my idea of family is not a hard nosed attitude. After all I've never been married but I did raise a son that I gave birth to back in 1987-and I'm very proud of him.  :love:  

Rick is talking about the Government needs to protect the institution of the family and his thoughts on what a family truly is-The mother and the father...well it's just perfect. It needs to be protected. Sounds noble right? :sarcasm:

Yes of course but...

What about a woman who is left widowed with say five sons to raise?

Or what about the young woman who believes that she doesn't want to live with the alcoholic/drug abuser that she got tangled up with and then found herself pregnant by?

Or...what about the young father who is left with the kids because sweet thang decided she didn't want to be burdened with kids anymore?

This is not the Father/mother family that Mr. Santorum thinks needs to be protected.

Protected? From what? Is it under attack? The only family values I see being under attack is those "non standard" type families that continue to try to do their best in an unfriendly economic world that has a shadow of a society snobbiness looking down their noses at them.

So what is his solution? Well he doesn't exactly say. He will admit that the one parent can raise a child/children but it's just not that father/mother thing he so lovingly endorses. So again...what's his solution?

Remove these children from this non too perfect family? Into what? Republicans or shall we say Religious Right people will suddenly start beating down the doors of orphanages? Suddenly.  

There's how many children out there today that are NOT being adopted by these very normal Families of Rick's dream world? But guess what there is at least one person we know of who will adopt. She's a celebrity. But hey Rosie's a known Lesbian. [Buzzzzzzzer] Not Ricks idea of a perfect Family at all!

So again...what's his solution?

He even stated on this show that the protection of this perfect type family can be done through legislation. Amazing.

So Concentration Camps for the dysfunctional family?

That's going to be a huge camp, especially here in the US of A.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#2 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 28 July 2005 - 10:12 PM

I just have to shake my head at these crackpots who talk about how the government in this country needs to "protect the family" (by which they mean the 'traditional' mother, father, child type unit).  What universe are these folk living in?  Are they unaware of the staggeringly high divorce rate in this country?

It would be laughable if it weren't so scary to think that some people actually buy into what these people are selling.

Lil
Posted Image

#3 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 28 July 2005 - 10:16 PM

^ read this in the other thread, I assume its the same? (Just making sure I don't have to re-read it, incase I missed anything).

Anyways, you mention celebreties adopting kids, no mention of single mother Angelina Jolie?? And all her work w/ the UN.

What do they mean by protect anyways? I figure the most volurnibly (sp??) are the ones needing the most protection, and I just don't see most two parent families as being volunerible (its too late at night ;) ), as long as they are a functional family.

Now I could suppose one would argue that they are disappearing as the norm, and two parent families are worth promoting, and are worth keeping the norm... But making laws? Please. Education maybe (for any family configuration, though you could promote it in school, and talk about relationships and making good choices in that regard, as long as they don't shoot down gays or those that don't even want children, whatever).

Do we protect groups because they are becoming less numerous? Only if they are on the endangered species list :p
Has there ever been an effort to do that with humans, and not even because of something inherent in that group of humans, but in their relationships/behavour/situation? A group that doesn't even need truely need protecting, in the traditional definition of the word?
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#4 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 28 July 2005 - 10:33 PM

I'd like to know when it ever was that every family consisted of two parents and children.  There have always been wars, disease, famines, natural disasters, and such that has shaped "family" into all kinds of configurations.  Maybe in TV land - dad earns the paycheck, mom cleans house and makes dinner, the kids go to school in clean clothes with a packed lunch.

#5 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 28 July 2005 - 10:36 PM

Una Salus Lillius

Quote

I just have to shake my head at these crackpots who talk about how the government in this country needs to "protect the family" (by which they mean the 'traditional' mother, father, child type unit). What universe are these folk living in? Are they unaware of the staggeringly high divorce rate in this country?

It would be laughable if it weren't so scary to think that some people actually buy into what these people are selling.

Hey Lil!

See this is the problem, that divorce rate.  He even made a statement on the Daily show about divorce and staying together for the children.  I felt like barfing to tell ya the truth.  I mean my father is sitting in the room watching this and thinking the same thing.  My father's mother's first husband was a guy who ended up in jail for robbing a bank and we pretty much suspect he may have used dear ol' gran as a punching bag.  Of course we are talking about the early 1900's and in Eastern Oklahoma.  No matter-she eventually divorced him and married my dads father.

Yes-it's laughable and scary.  I suppose that's why I've posted this.

sierraleone  Yes it's the same rant from the other thread.   :hehe:  I posted and then read and went Ya know it doesn't reallllly belong here

I used Rosie as the ultimate extreme example.  But God Love her she did adopt those kids and she is giving them a good home-puhlease-I know you realize that.  But truly...

And bless Ms Jolie and Ms Manheim and Ms Farrow for their generous hearts also.

And yes the Nuclear Family (50's term) Father, Mother and 2 and a half kids that are together-the protection they need is from the know it all busy bodies that stick their noses in on their business.

Personally I will say this-if a relationship is over and it is obvious the children will know it, I say don't torture yourself or those around you.  NOW-if a couple decide to stick it out-more power to them.  But...if they don't I say more power to them still...sometimes children suffer in these situations were parents stick it out.  Of course whatever the kids will suffer.  But ya know what?  I'll say it...really I will.  What doesn't kill you makes you stronger...

By the way my parents have been married for 50 years and they love each other tremendously. :wideeyed:
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#6 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 28 July 2005 - 10:46 PM

eloisel, on Jul 28 2005, 10:33 PM, said:

I'd like to know when it ever was that every family consisted of two parents and children.  There have always been wars, disease, famines, natural disasters, and such that has shaped "family" into all kinds of configurations.  Maybe in TV land - dad earns the paycheck, mom cleans house and makes dinner, the kids go to school in clean clothes with a packed lunch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Hello Eloisel!

Exactly.  

Of course History is filled with stories of how women have made the mistake of remarrying because she thinks her children need a father figure and the guy is just...well the kids would have been better off.

I love to tell the story of an ancestress of mine that I found in my family research.  I like to ask people do we really want to go back to this.

Back in the 1700's there was such an attitude about having a child out of wedlock that they would fine the mother.  Not the father but the mother.

I have an ancestress that gave birth to at least three children out of wedlock.  The rumor is that the children belonged to a well off young man of the community.  Their mother actually was not from a bad family either but of course her family disowned her after the first child was born when she was around 16.  The way this is known is through court records that show that she was brought before the North Carolina courts and fined for giving birth to these children.  Her fines were paid with Cotton and other such products which leaves the geneologist to believe it was the daddy that paid the fine.  Oh and by the way she died at the ripe ol' age of 33.

But this is a fine example of a religious fanatical world taking matters in hand.  Obviously she loved this guy, but just as obviously he wasn't going to marry her.  It's a very interesting story.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#7 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 28 July 2005 - 10:55 PM

^ well you couldn't proove fatherhood back then, it was a he-said she-said.

If he was well off, I suspect she had a bad repute because of the out-of-wedlock children and therefor unmarriagable material... of course, if he was the daddy of the first kid, why didn't he do the honorable thing (back then) and propose, is the question I suppose (before the tyke was born). There was probably more at work, too bad we couldn't hear the whole story.

They fine someone already obviously improvished? Unless he was keeping her up very well ;)
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#8 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 28 July 2005 - 11:03 PM

^This is the thing.

Was he keeping her up-perhaps.  May have even openly said the kids were his but not on legal documents.  It's possible.

And tarnished rep-well like I said-at sixteen...well I can't help but think of the immortal words, "But daddy I love him."
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#9 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 28 July 2005 - 11:12 PM

But going beyond the ancestress thing are we as a society going to start telling people they can't divorce?  Stay together for the kids.

Use to it was hard for a couple to get a divorce.

So-the Religious Right gets the Roe vs Wade overturned or changed then what's their next move?

I say it's the divorce laws, maybe first attacking women at work.   That's also a big issue.

Of course with our economy-women have to work even if they are married to that hard working man.

I have a friend that in her second marriage (she is now in a very successful third marriage [no abuse involved]) she actually had an employer call her then husband and ask him why she was working?  See the employer was a real big Religious leader in the community and he knew her husband had a pretty good job so he thought he'd just ask.  

Why?  What business was it of his?  If he didn't want her working for him then let her go-but...still.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#10 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 29 July 2005 - 01:23 AM

I feel that I should point out that religious people are not the only ones who feel that a family should be a mother and a father and children. There are people, both secular and religious, who believe that having one parent of each gender provides for more stability than any other form.

Personally, I have a very wide definition of family, and it doesn't just include blood relationships. In fact, the people I consider 'family' right now, excludes an uncle and a grandparent over their inexplicably horrendous behaviour, while including a number of people who are as close to me as my parents or sister.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#11 Gefiltefishmon

Gefiltefishmon

    Oolong Caluphids Private Secretary

  • Islander
  • 789 posts

Posted 29 July 2005 - 02:02 AM

The only people worth anything grew up in a mother/father family! Obviously!!!!

People Like.......

Ted Bundy grew up in a mother/father family

Jeff Dahmer grew up in a mother/father family

John Wayne Gacey grew up in a mother/father family

Typhoid Mary grew up in a mother/father family

Joseph McCarthy grew up in a mother/father family

Pol Pot grew up in a mother/father family

But!?! what!?!?!, that proves nothing!?!?! You're twisting my words!?!?!

Well, the endlessly stupid and emotionally retarded party leadership feels that only by appealing to the morality of the GUM (Great Unwashed Masses in RePubli-speak) through these kinds of self-aggrandizing literary masturbation can they make their point that they are "For" families.

I am too! It's just that unlike the stupid and emotionally retarded party leadership, I'm not stupid and emotionally retarded enough to strike non-traditionals off the list of families. I think that they are shooting themselves in the foot for doing it.

The fact is crappy parents raise crappy kids and concerned, involved loving parents raise productive members of society. But in yet another attempt to seperate the "we've got's" from the "they shouldn't have's" and insure their own dominance into the future - more inane literary diarehea will flow from orifices like the Santorum until this group of sanctimonious self-serving liars goes to hell where they belong - which of course I don't believe in, but they do, so bring sunscreen Rick!

But again, no surprise here - they are trying to make this country the Christian Taliban while simultaneously talking out of one side of their mouth about tolerance (lies) and the other side of their mouth talking about the so-called "War-on-Terror" - which, in all honesty, they don't want to end. They want this bad boy to go on just like the "Cold War" so they can suck at the teat of Defense contracts til doomsday - and by selling it wrapped in a big ole' Morality play the sheep buy it.

But I hope he had a nice time on the Show *Sweet Smile* I thought Jon Stewart looked like he was wishing he had smoked BOTH joints before going on the air, instead of just the one....

Jesus wept!!!
"To know that you do not know is the best. To act from the pretense that you know when you do not know is a disease" - Lao Tzu

"From All, One; and From One, All" - Heraclitus

"Let me be clear: however the world's goblet turns there will always be those drunk on the wine of the Self" - Ghalib

"A 'politically savvy challenge to evolution' is as self-evidently ridiculous as an agriculturally savvy challenge to euclidean geometry would be." - Charles Pierce

#12 UoR11

UoR11
  • Islander
  • 1,839 posts

Posted 29 July 2005 - 02:31 AM

Godeskian, on Jul 29 2005, 12:23 AM, said:

I feel that I should point out that religious people are not the only ones who feel that a family should be a mother and a father and children. There are people, both secular and religious, who believe that having one parent of each gender provides for more stability than any other form.

Personally, I have a very wide definition of family, and it doesn't just include blood relationships. In fact, the people I consider 'family' right now, excludes an uncle and a grandparent over their inexplicably horrendous behaviour, while including a number of people who are as close to me as my parents or sister.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I agree wholeheartedly with you on this point. At my Mom's funeral, two of my "aunts" came up to me and yelled at me to remember that I have three aunts. I told them that yes, I do, but you two aren't in the three. I think a lot of my happiness comes from being willing to write off some of the scumbags I share blood with. As for divorce, even after my parents divorced, I saw both of them a lot, as they lived a few miles apart, but even if one of them had moved across the country, I'm still convinced I'd have been better for the divorce. One parent who's all together's better than two miserably depressed parents.
Yes, I am an economist. Yes, I do frequently sing "Can't Buy Me Love". No, I don't see any contradiction there.

#13 Tricia

Tricia

    To err on the side of kindness is seldom an error.

  • Islander
  • 10,245 posts

Posted 29 July 2005 - 03:58 AM

AS a child who grew up in a household where it was blatantly obvious that my parents didn't like or love each other I can tell you that staying together for the kids is not a good thing.

( there was physical and verbal abuse involved and a mother who stayed because she feared that she couldn't raise or support four kids alone)

I spent the the first 30 years of my life thinking that if this was what love and marriage was about...then I wanted none of that.  We kids all went into family counseling with Mom after they finally divorced and worked out most of our issues.  (Dad wouldn't go as the counselor said he needed separate counseling to deal with HIS personal issues)  

And I've discovered that family doesn't have to only include those people related to you by blood...

I've made a little family circle of friends who I am closer in some ways to than my siblings.  I guess you can call them cousins by choice.  And they each bring something different to our 'family'

The fact is in our world today you find family...and love...where you can

In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. --Thich Nhat Hanh


You don't need to attend every argument you are invited to


Do not ask that your kids live up to your expectations.  Let your kids be who they are, and your expectations will be in breathless pursuit.


#14 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 29 July 2005 - 04:30 AM

trikay, on Jul 29 2005, 09:58 AM, said:

The fact is in our world today you find family...and love...where you can

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


just wanted to restate this.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#15 Rhiannonjk

Rhiannonjk

    Woof!

  • Islander
  • 1,507 posts

Posted 29 July 2005 - 07:32 AM

So let me get this straight:
- The King of England decides he doesn't want to behead his wives anymore, so he forms a new church that allows him to divorce them instead
- England forces all citizens to be members of this church
- America decides they don't want to be members of the Church of England and start their own country
- Now people are all against that whole "divorce" thing
Perhaps we should go back to beheadings...

On a personal note, I'm having a very hard time with a friend of mine that is trying to leave an abusive relationship.  Everytime she mentioned leaving, he held her down and read the bible to her.  she built up the courage and moved out, but now he's pressuring her to get back together because he's "read books" and "talked to people" and the best thing for their two children is to have a whole family.  It makes me sick to my stomach.

***Is easily distracted***


#16 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 29 July 2005 - 07:47 AM

Taking into account some of Rick Santorum's bizarre family behavior, I don't think he's anyone I'd take lifestyle advice from...

Cheers,

Zwolf
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"

#17 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 29 July 2005 - 08:10 AM

I come from a world-class dysfunctional family. To put it bluntly when my father and mother weren’t raping my sister, my mother was trying to forget I existed, and my father was beating the living daylights out of me. Decades later when my mother was slowly dying from emphysema, ala 40 years of smoking, she suddenly decided that she had a son.

The last statistics I remember on the subject was one in four girls, and one in seven boys face sexual abuse in the family. I don’t remember the numbers on plain run of the mill physical abuse. So much for the nuclear family.

With all do respect Ms. Clinton kinda has it right. It does in fact take a village to raise a child. Growing up, having children, and then raising them are the hardest complex long-term behaviors that the human animal can engage in. Even in their late twenties most people are still very much adolescents and the age of fertility in this country has gotten as low as I think it can, some girls as young as age 9 are now rather hurriedly passing through puberty.

The point is that it is only since the mid twentieth century, the nineteen fifties that this idea of the nuclear family, a family of the mother father and children has come in to vogue. (Actually it was in Mc Calls first, but Vogue picked up on it early in the campaign, not to mention Hollywood’s television city.) For the entirety of mans evolution, the unit has been the extended family supported first by the tribe then the village. Aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents where always there to help with child care, intervene in disputes, care for the ill, infirmed and disable, and most important of all teach the young societal norms.

In this country first because of the nuclear bomb threat of the cold war then because of corporate greed the extended family has been torn apart, first by the government’s deliberate decentralization of whole industries, the government’s emphasis on truck, and aircraft based transport, then came the right to work laws. Right to work laws, which in turn has lead to off shoring, out sourcing, and the loss of the very jobs that supported the extended families. So much for government driven social engineering.

I could go on for pages more … but then…

Some think, myself included that Rick Santorum's book has all but ended his political upward mobility, and made him a historical, or hysterical footnote, as the case may be. (“Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.”)

Edited by emsparks, 29 July 2005 - 08:17 AM.

Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#18 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 29 July 2005 - 08:54 AM

Quote

Gefiltefishmon: Well, the endlessly stupid and emotionally retarded party leadership feels that only by appealing to the morality of the GUM (Great Unwashed Masses in RePubli-speak) through these kinds of self-aggrandizing literary masturbation can they make their point that they are "For" families.

Ouch. I share your contempt for Santorum's holier-than-thouness, Gefiltefishmon, but I can see where the phrasing here might be considered by Republicans in general on this board to be a dis, mainly because of the reference to "RePubli-peak." If someone wrote about DemSpeak, I can see where some folks here would have their feathers ruffled.

Fortunately, the Republican party still has a few moderates and a few people who don't think that "conservative" means rolling the clock back to the days of America's being the Puritans' "New Jerusalem." More power to 'em.

Back to the topic of Santorum, I do think that he's shot himself in the foot--again. He's managed to offend many working mothers, who vote Republican, with his implication that they're just selfish and greedy and are poor parents because they don't stay home.

I actually agree with the notion that some families could probably sacrifice a few material things (big house, big cars, latest toys) so that one parent could be at home. But I think that in many families in which both parents work they do so out of necessity rather than a desire for more stuff. But Santorum, in his zeal to attack "liberals," has probably ended up alienating some in his own base, including some single mothers.

I truly look forward to voting against Santorum next year--as do a lot of Pennsylvanians. :)
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#19 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 29 July 2005 - 09:22 AM

I'm going to make a statement here about the Republicans this thread is in no way an attack on the Republican party.

I simply wish the Republicans would please get control back of their party.  They need to give Mr. Rove and Mr. Santorum a reality check.

The heartening thing is that this agenda of Mr. Santorum really doesn't just step on the toes of liberals.  This will step on toes of some very hard line conservatives actually.

I remember Dan Quayle I do believe his whole Murphy Brown thing pretty much did him in.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#20 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 29 July 2005 - 09:27 AM

Hibblette, on Jul 29 2005, 03:22 PM, said:

I remember Dan Quayle I do believe his whole Murphy Brown thing pretty much did him in


his what?  :eh:

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Abortion, Family Values, Rick Santorum, 2005

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users